Octopus Overlords

Moliere wrote:

Victoria Raverna wrote:According to the Philippine authority, this was not a terror attack.

The gunman's goal was to rob the casino and he didn't shoot at the casino guests. Most of the casualties were because of the smoke.

It's still an interesting coincidence.

Or is it: Islamic State Claims Philippine Casino Attack

Islamic State claimed an attack in the Philippines that left at least 36 people dead at a Manila hotel-and-casino resort in the early hours of Friday morning.

The terror group said its fighters were responsible for the attack, in which dozens of people suffocated after a gunman set fire to part of the complex, in a brief Arabic statement posted to its official Amaq media arm.

Of course, they likely claim credit for everything when they might of had nothing to do with it.

RunningMn9 wrote:I saw somewhere the other day (post-disastrous foreign trip and anticipating withdrawal from Paris Agreement) that the US is no longer the leader of the free world. I was surprised that my first reaction was "Good, that will limit the amount of direct damage this fucking idiot can do to the rest of the world".

But with a staff full of base amateurs and venal grifters there is a lot of damage the rest of the world can do to the US. Prepare to be walked all over. The ramifications of which will last for the rest of the life of the nation.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:I saw somewhere the other day (post-disastrous foreign trip and anticipating withdrawal from Paris Agreement) that the US is no longer the leader of the free world. I was surprised that my first reaction was "Good, that will limit the amount of direct damage this fucking idiot can do to the rest of the world".

But with a staff full of base amateurs and venal grifters there is a lot of damage the rest of the world can do to the US. Prepare to be walked all over. The ramifications of which will last for the rest of the life of the nation.

I concur with your sentiment. Pre-Tea Party insanity, I had a strong belief that I'd be happy taking the US off the top of "free world" pedestal. It's a burden we can't lift forever. Post Trump era, where the wealthy are protected by multinational existence, and can take their balls and play with whatever regime promises them the best life today, I got nothin'. Normally, I like being wrong. I'm usually a pessimist, and being wrong results in a pleasant surprise. Watching our country crumble when it comes to international importance and all of the cause and effect that follows is mortifying.

I keep hoping this is just a feature of my psyche being exposed to Internet overload, but it sure doesn't look that way.

Happy Pride...
And that's about all we're getting, cause Trump has ditched White House LGBT Pride Month celebrations

Today, the Trump White House released a string of Proclamations marking June as “National Homeownership Month”, “National Ocean Month”, “African-American Music Appreciation Month” and “Great Outdoors Month” – but no such Proclamation was released for LGBT Pride Month

.

As someone selling consumer fashion goods, she needs to release statements like that. It doesn't matter what she really feels. She has a brand to protect.

LawBeefaroni wrote:But with a staff full of base amateurs and venal grifters there is a lot of damage the rest of the world can do to the US. Prepare to be walked all over. The ramifications of which will last for the rest of the life of the nation.

Well yeah, we're totally fucked.

Scoop20906 wrote:If you are fine with government agencies stuck in limbo and being unable to adapt then you love this administration.

This ultimately is the purest expression where I think modern conservatism has gone awry (and why I could no longer be a part of it). It's all part of an ideological belief that decisions are best made by those closest to the issue. Decisions affecting the day-to-day life in my town are best left for my local town government. Decisions that affect my state are best left for my state government. You get the picture.

While I conceptually understand this, and philosophically still agree with it - those beliefs have been tempered by the harsh reality that local governments offer many of the most extreme examples of corruption and gross incompetence. My local town government is the best level to make these decisions, but the people in charge of making them are some of the least qualified people to many them.

That applies to the State, but slightly less so (given that generally there is an additional degree of competence that normally seeps in when you have to win over a larger group of people). And the same goes to the Federal level. While Senator Cory Booker is far less connected to my town and the issues that it faces to make decisions necessarily in our best interest - he is *vastly* more competent than anyone working in my local government.

Anyway - this thinking have become so prevalent and perverse among modern conservatives that they've lost sight that the Country is bigger than their immediate concerns. I don't mean to say that their immediate concerns should be ignored - but that can't be the only focus of the federal government. The federal government MUST act on a global stage. The federal government MUST act with a view on long-term strategic thinking.

It is the only entity capable of acting in this manner. Once upon a time, Conservatives understood this, and understood what it meant to lead globally - even on conservative principles. That part of conservatism is gone. It's focused solely on me and mine, and American standing alone against the world. And in that worldview, grinding the federal government to a halt is a virtue.

And for anyone suggesting that the framers of the Constitution intended this outcome - you are out of your mind. This is the outcome that those against forming a federal government sought to achieve.

I don't think it to be particularly odd that an agrarian system with 13 entities didn't scale well to 50 states post industrialization. Especially when some of these entities are vast low population areas with unique stressors.

Not a criticism just that anyone who thinks the founders could even conceive of what the world became just 200 years later is not reasonable. They built in a mechanism to fix this but that is broken too. The Senate design ensures that. They could not have predicted the edge case we are seeing now.

The evidence are the many norms that have fallen and the controls that are not working. This system is broken.

Hey, what's on tap for Friday? How about some marching orders:

The White House is telling federal agencies to blow off Democratic lawmakers' oversight requests, as Republicans fear the information could be weaponized against President Donald Trump.

At meetings with top officials for various government departments this spring, Uttam Dhillon, a White House lawyer, told agencies not to cooperate with such requests from Democrats, according to Republican sources inside and outside the administration

This is normal.

malchior wrote:I don't think it to be particularly odd that an agrarian system with 13 entities didn't scale well to 50 states post industrialization. Especially when some of these entities are vast low population areas with unique stressors.

Not a criticism just that anyone who thinks the founders could even conceive of what the world became just 200 years later is not reasonable. They built in a mechanism to fix this but that is broken too. The Senate design ensures that. They could not have predicted the edge case we are seeing now.

The evidence are the many norms that have fallen and the controls that are not working. This system is broken.

Regardless of whether you think the design and composition of the Senate is a feature or a bug, the bottom line is that it is not changing (short of full revolution and completely new government). So while it makes for interesting theoretical debates about whether we should change how seats are allotted, or modify the states, or whatever, they're just theoretical debates, and they're not going to affect reality. (I think there's potential for change to the Electoral College system at some point, however.)

Moliere wrote:

Alefroth wrote:Trump once again jumps the gun claiming a terror attack when there is no evidence to back it up.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/artic ... -in-manila

Like this one?

Philippine Casino Attack Leaves Dozens Dead

Philippine investigators say 36 people suffocated to death inside a major hotel-and-casino resort in the capital Manila after a gunman torched part of the complex and tried to make off with more than $2 million in casino chips.

The attacker, whose identity is still unknown, later killed himself by setting himself alight, national police chief Gen. Ronald Dela Rosa told reporters. “He burned himself inside the hotel in room 510,” Gen. Dela Rosa said. “He was burned beyond recognition.”

Yes, that's the kind of report that doesn't show evidence of terrorism to which I am referring.

Smoove_B wrote:Hey, what's on tap for Friday? How about some marching orders:

The White House is telling federal agencies to blow off Democratic lawmakers' oversight requests, as Republicans fear the information could be weaponized against President Donald Trump.

At meetings with top officials for various government departments this spring, Uttam Dhillon, a White House lawyer, told agencies not to cooperate with such requests from Democrats, according to Republican sources inside and outside the administration

This is normal.

Tell me, how many obstructions do you see?

Moliere wrote:

Islamic State claimed an attack in the Philippines that left at least 36 people dead at a Manila hotel-and-casino resort in the early hours of Friday morning.

The terror group said its fighters were responsible for the attack, in which dozens of people suffocated after a gunman set fire to part of the complex, in a brief Arabic statement posted to its official Amaq media arm.

Of course, they likely claim credit for everything when they might of had nothing to do with it.

Exactly.

ImLawBoy wrote:Regardless of whether you think the design and composition of the Senate is a feature or a bug, the bottom line is that it is not changing (short of full revolution and completely new government). So while it makes for interesting theoretical debates about whether we should change how seats are allotted, or modify the states, or whatever, they're just theoretical debates, and they're not going to affect reality. (I think there's potential for change to the Electoral College system at some point, however.)

I was positing it originally in the other thread as a theoretical but there is an actionable component. I don't know if this lack of accountability would survive in the face of mass protest - think Venezuelan scale protesting. If that were to happen tomorrow, I believe things would change. Wait 8 years while this stuff bakes in and the chances go down over time. In other words, the time to act is sooner than later. That is a big part of my thinking around dispelling the notion that this is within the normal system and will somehow get fixed eventually is a good idea. That is why I am unhappy with the media because I think in general the MSM should be hanging off the alarms right now and aside from some notable exceptions...they are not.

malchior wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:Regardless of whether you think the design and composition of the Senate is a feature or a bug, the bottom line is that it is not changing (short of full revolution and completely new government). So while it makes for interesting theoretical debates about whether we should change how seats are allotted, or modify the states, or whatever, they're just theoretical debates, and they're not going to affect reality. (I think there's potential for change to the Electoral College system at some point, however.)

I was positing it originally in the other thread as a theoretical but there is an actionable component. I don't know if this lack of accountability would survive in the face of mass protest - think Venezuelan scale protesting. If that were to happen tomorrow, I believe things would change. Wait 8 years while this stuff bakes in and the chances go down over time. In other words, the time to act is sooner than later. That is a big part of my thinking around dispelling the notion that this is within the normal system and will somehow get fixed eventually is a good idea. That is why I am unhappy with the media because I think in general the MSM should be hanging off the alarms right now and aside from some notable exceptions...they are not.

But that's why this remains theoretical. The country isn't close to the type of mass protests that are taking place in Venezuela, and if that's what's needed to change things (and for it to happen soon), then things aren't going to change.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

Can Biden (running as a democrat) defeat Donny in 2020?

Scoop20906 wrote:I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

Can Biden (running as a democrat) defeat Donny in 2020?

I doubt that Trump will be on the ballot. I like to picture him in prison stripes. Hypothetically, though...I don't think so. Biden would represent a return to the Obama-Clinton-Establishment version of normalcy, and while that might beguile many moderate voters, the world has moved on and the electorate is too polarized. The Democrats need a new forward-thinking vision, not nostalgia for a gauzy past.

'Course, a lot of water is going under the bridge before then. I'd vote for him, though.

Biden would be 78 in January 2021.

I like Biden, I'd totally vote for him. It'd be a terrible idea for him to run. Unless this anti-establishment thing is completely out of gas in three years, then running a former VP who's been in DC for decades would be ignoring everything that's happened this time around. I'm also willing to bet the Obama is the actual devil crowd is still running strong by then too, so running Obama's VP would be doubleplus ungood.

Al Franken in 2020.

I'd love to see Al Franken debate Mike Pence. Smart-and-funny beats self-righteous every time.

Exodor wrote:Al Franken in 2020.

He's got my vote. I've been meaning to order his book. Bonus points for being the first member of the tribe in the WH.

Franken comes off too smug for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with what Biden said: he would have been a great candidate, but Hillary would have been a great President.

Joe has the right message, but a fresh face for the Democrats with similar authenticity could sell it better. The media would LOVE to tell a David v Goliath story with an unknown rising to challenge Trump.

There is 0% chance that Trump leaves Hillary and Obama behind him. He's obsessed with them (and him own ego) beyond reason. Biden would feed that evil beast.

Another unknown? Obama was a true unknown.

Is there no statesmen in waiting out there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tgb wrote:

Exodor wrote:Al Franken in 2020.

He's got my vote. I've been meaning to order his book. Bonus points for being the first member of the tribe in the WH.

Yeah, I love Franken as well. Though he was interviewed on Marc Maron's WTF podcast the other day and gave a hard "no" when Marc asked him about running for President. That can always change, but it wasn't one of those "I don't want to but we'll see" kind of answers.

I've watched Franken speak. I've seen him in committees.

I despise Trump. I think he is the worst president we've had.

I'd have a hard time choosing between Trump and Franken.

Exodor wrote:Al Franken in 2020.

Please, no.

I would vote for Al Franken in a New York minute for the comedy value alone. Plus, he does actually have some experience as a politician. But more importantly, he's not Chauncey Gardner.

Oh, and it would cause the heads of Rip and his friends to explode in a glorious technicolor display of outrage.

Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.

The eel-whays on the us-bay o-gay ound-ray and ound-ray.

hepcat wrote:The eel-whays on the us-bay o-gay ound-ray and ound-ray.

Not if funding is cut.

LordMortis wrote:

Exodor wrote:Al Franken in 2020.

Please, no.

I never can understand yours (and others) repellence to him (speak to those like you who 'more or less' may agree with his general leaning but find him to be a cocky dick or something).

Personally, I was too young to get his early SNL work. I found him to be kinda weird, a little like his humor was low-brow and secretly high-brow, but I didn't get it or something.
He wasn't a big presence in the show but had his self absorbed "I'm Al Franken" thing... and it was silly. In what I kinda took as a self-deprecating way... Not sure if it's cultural - but it was a 'jewish' sense of humor and I had jewish friends that I could sorta 'see in him'.

Later he was in SNL and had characters/skits that I generally didn't enjoy. Occasionally I would - but he did sorta just not 'hit it' for me.

Years later - I found myself older and in a world that was listening to Rush Limbaugh and just some of what I was hearing was profoundly annoying to me... Then a book came out: "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations"... followed by "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". And - I fell in love with the author: Al Franken

Haven't looked back. I think intelligence and humor are linked - and I think Al's a smart guy that fell in love with comedy. And a good guy. I just don't get the hate on him.... I feel like some hear his tone and run with it in the wrong direction.

Franken is intelligent and certainly witty but I think our executive should have a statesmen quality he lacks (even he knows this). Franken is playing his role will as he is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd probably agree that I like where he is and what he's doing (and as you say, he agrees as well)... Although I also would say that he'd probably do just fine 'statesman wise' as I hear he is generally liked in the Senate.

But Lordmortis isn't just holding his nose at a President Franken, I could be misremembering, but I think he has previously stated a profound distaste for him.

Unagi wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

Exodor wrote:Al Franken in 2020.

Please, no.

I never can understand yours (and others) repellence to him (speak to those like you who 'more or less' may agree with his general leaning but find him to be a cocky dick or something).

Completely agree. The guy is whip smart, a real policy wonk, and has been effective in his job. I don't get the hate. It's like hating the smart guy in the class just because he knows he's smart.

Franken has transcended his origins as a comedian, but like Elizabeth Warren, he has "Yankee Intellectual" written all over him.

In this national climate that's less appealing than "Wealthy Good Ol Boy" or even, apparently, "Bloated Philandering Scam Artist."

Trump using the bully pulpit judiciously once again to belittle the mayor of city that was just attacked - what a classless fucking moron.

Trump only helps the terrorists.

What a nightmare.

Every day Trump reminds us how much of an effing moron he is. And every day his apologists grow more and more loathsome. His impeachment can't come soon enough.

hepcat wrote:Every day Trump reminds us how much of an effing moron he is. And every day his apologists grow more and more loathsome. His impeachment can't come soon enough.

He will not go peacefully, and removing him will not end his movement. Things have to get a lot worse before they can get any better.